Talk:Age of Unreason
FA status Nomination * One of the most complete "book" pages I've seen, including " ". - 23:15, April 2, 2015 (UTC) * Support: For the reasons stated in my comments below. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:14, April 4, 2015 (UTC) Comment: I'm always wary of novel articles as Featured Articles since a lot of the content is simply copied material from the book jacket or lists of characters. They very rarely bring anything new to the table that I personally would consider "the best example of Memory Alpha's work". That said, if all the information on the novel is there then I suppose it is as complete as it's ever going to get. I'm going to think on this for a little while and will return to post my vote in due course. --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:33, April 3, 2015 (UTC) :Comment: As we only give the SCE omnibuses their own pages and the individual ebooks redirect over to them, each sub-book should contain the "back cover blurb" at the start of its section. -- sulfur (talk) 14:55, April 3, 2015 (UTC) ::Done! :) -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:23, April 3, 2015 (UTC) Comment: Oh yeah, I'm not disputing that the cover blurb should be there. I'm just in two minds about whether an article comprised mostly of them should be considered an FA when we have a lot of other articles that comprise a lot more detailed write-ups. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:04, April 3, 2015 (UTC) :::TrekFan, I'm not sure why you're under the impression that this page is comprised mostly of blurbs, since the thing that most interested me was that it wasn't. All of the descriptions are pretty detailed as far as I can tell, which is enough to be several times longer than the blurb, and I think they convey at least enough of the story to follow it while still leaving me wanting to read these books. I can't say that I've wanted, or felt I needed to, watch something after some of our more "extremely" detailed episode/film summaries. Also, simply having a "complete" reference list puts this miles ahead of most of the "print" articles, which I think makes this an example of MA's best work. - 07:08, April 4, 2015 (UTC) I'm not saying I dislike the article, just that I was in two minds about it. Yes, the summary is quite a good write up and having thought on this a bit since my last comment, I think I'm going to support this nomination. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:14, April 4, 2015 (UTC) * Support. Maybe some "illustrations" (images from the novel collection) could enhance the article but that is only my personal opinion. Tom (talk) 17:23, April 10, 2015 (UTC) * Support - Been doing a lot on novel writers, so yes, I'd go for this. Second ThomasHL's suggestion-RayBell (talk) 16:37, April 18, 2015 (UTC) * Support - While I'm admittedly more at ease with BG reference works I subscribe to Duke's original assessment, reinforced by the blurb adds by TrekFan--Sennim (talk) 21:42, April 21, 2015 (UTC) Reconfirmation after split This is another unusual one. The original FA, Breakdowns, is actually an omnibus, and the individual sub-entries should have each been on their own pages rather than all of their information being on the main page. I've taken the steps to split the pages out appropriately as follows: * 1. "Home Fires/temp" * 2. "Age of Unreason/temp" * 3. "Balance of Nature/temp" * 4. "Breakdowns (eBook)/temp" Until this reconfirmation is complete (one way or another), those articles will remain at the '/temp' locations. Once complete, they'll be moved over the redirects, and the Breakdowns article will be slimmed down to match up with the other omnibuses, such as: "Breakdowns/temp". This slimmed article will no longer be considered an FA. The last time this was done was with the Constitution class model (original) and Constitution class model (refit) article split, and this will follow generally the same review criteria. This discussion will mostly work as a standard review, but will cover all four sub-articles, so please remember to specify which one you are talking about (by number or name) if necessary. To address the undisputed & stable requirement in the criteria though, this will run for the full 14 days of inactivity to make sure this is fulfilled. The pages themselves though, both the original and split versions, haven't been edited greatly since the prior discussion occurred, so outside of the rearrangement, the content of these pages hasn't really changed all that much. If this passes, the current FA blurb will be merged into the original version, as this is still a FA and that blurb is still in use. Also, please remember that minor edits that need a few days (or less) should only require a hold instead of a full objection. * Hold on first two (1+2) in order to add in some Memorable Quotes. Otherwise Support on all. -- sulfur (talk) 12:54, October 16, 2015 (UTC) * The blurbs need some beefing up, but otherwise Support all, assuming #2 gets those MQs. - 13:35, October 16, 2015 (UTC) * Support on all, now that all four have memorable quotes. I know that the blurbs need some work yet, but I wanted to get a starting point first. Those can be worked on a bit more... but not too much -- don't want to give away all the plot points (the shortest book is ~60 pages, the longest about 120. -- sulfur (talk) 14:14, October 16, 2015 (UTC) * Support all. -- Renegade54 (talk) 14:53, October 16, 2015 (UTC) * I've removed a non-canon red link. Support the idea and all of them. Tom (talk) 21:05, October 19, 2015 (UTC)